Why can't women be ordained, when they can be baptized

[NowHereThis]

By this logic, you should be disgruntled against Christ for coming in the form of a man instead of a woman, or both. You would complain that Christ came as a man and chose men for His Ministerial Priesthood (by this logic). Is that your intent?

Nope. In the post above, I adopt the treatment of gender as a natural fact (not determinative in a supernaturally established priesthood), and in another post, I suggest that the church could interpret the selection of male apostles as silence on the question of female apostles, rather than prohibition.

 

[NowHereThis]

Was “Jesus’ selection of the twelve” the only criteria used by the Church in recognizing this truth? No. Read the short link in Post #8 that edwest2 provided. It’s goes into great detail in a very succinct way.

I did read it. It can be summarized as follows “Jesus selected the twelve. The church has always interpreted that to mean the exclusion of women from ordination is part of God’s plan. No, that doesn’t mean we’re demeaning women.”

So pretty much yeah, “Jesus’s selection of the twelve” is the only criteria even according to that letter.

 

[NowHereThis]

Disabled by their gender? Are you saying that women cannot have a fulfilling life without the ability to become a Priest?

No more than I’m saying that men can’t have fulfilling lives without become priests. But men don’t have to live with the total denial of even the possibility of becoming a priest by virtue of their gender, and women do. That’s the disability.

 

[Actaeon]

Nope. In the post above, I adopt the treatment of gender as a natural fact (not determinative in a supernaturally established priesthood),

So you are just a body?

and in another post, I suggest that the church could interpret the selection of male apostles as silence on the question of female apostles, rather than prohibition.

You assume that the authority of the Church is to reinterpret and bind TRUTH as it sees fit. That is incorrect. The magisterial teaching authority of the church is to correctly observe and TEACH truth as it is revealed.

The binding and losing refers to the authority to forgive or retain sins… not to reinterpret doctrines based on the whims of modern materialistic attitudes about gender or gnostics reinterpretations of faith

 

[NowHereThis]

This is a logical fallacy of composition. The fact that the Church is the Bride of Christ does NOT mean that each individual member of the Church is ALSO the Bride of Christ.

In other words, no man is the “Bride of Christ.” The role of the Church as the bride of Christ does not extend to us as individuals but rather only to the Church as a whole. This metaphorical relationship ALSO extends, however, to the role that nuns (women) play in holy orders, but never to men as individuals.

Similarly, even if the priesthood is the bridegroom, not every priest must be the “bridegroom”.

Sword drills are not the way to understand scripture. We cannot understand a verse of scripture without understanding it in the context in which a particular verse is presented. Galatians 3:28 is part of a discussion of whether or not gentiles could be saved, or if they were subject to conversion to Judaism and Jewish law in order to be saved. The answer is that no, all people can be saved and are NOT subject to the laws of the old covenant to do so.

You have taken a verse which says that all can be saved by the Grace of Christ, and by separating it from its context, you have reinterpreted it to mean that the ethos of creation no longer functions as a natural order. I’m sorry, but I must reject this reinterpretation of Galatians 3 as false…

Even in interpretive context you suggest, he’s still saying that those in Christ aren’t subject to male/female distinctions with regard to Christ, because those are part of the old order.

It would be to your advantage if Paul hadn’t included male/female distinctions in his list, but he did, and that can’t be discounted just by saying “context!”

 

[NowHereThis]

Um… no. Again, the universal priesthood of believers is not a smaller element of the ordained priesthood. They are, simply put, not even the same thing. Sort of like the sainthood of all believers is NOT the same as the Sainthood of those in heaven. (nor does being an earthen saint entitle one to automatic status as a Saint in heaven).

If they didn’t share at least some characteristics in common, it wouldn’t make sense to call them both priesthood.

Careful here, because you are disparaging women. Men cannot have children. Men cannot become nuns. Men cannot become mothers, or sisters. There are many roles which are appropriate to the ethos of women when men cannot fulfill. Men are not “disabled” (handicapped?) by the fact that we cannot become those things.

Similarly, women cannot be fathers and brothers, they cannot become priests. There are many roles which are appropriate to the ethos of men which women cannot fulfill. Women are NOT disabled or handicapped by the fact that they cannot become those things. They are women. Being a woman is an incredible and awesome thing.

But you would have me believe that unless a woman can make herself like a man, that she’s disabled and insufficient. I don’t believe that. I think women are phenomenal WITHOUT having to try to become men.

So where is the woman’s equivalent of being an ordained priest? Father/mother, sister/brother, and monk/nun line up in a “different but equal way”, but then we get priest/nothing, and that is not equal. I see that as a handicap the church has placed on women, not one inherent in being a woman (which is the way you are interpreting me).

 

[NowHereThis]

But being a priest is not “part of our created being”. It’s something that comes from participation in Christ, yes?

And I haven’t been discussing any gnostics or gnostic writings, just the Apostle Paul.

 

[NowHereThis]

So you are just a body?

You assume that the authority of the Church is to reinterpret and bind TRUTH as it sees fit. That is incorrect. The magisterial teaching authority of the church is to correctly observe and TEACH truth as it is revealed.

The binding and losing refers to the authority to forgive or retain sins… not to reinterpret doctrines based on the whims of modern materialistic attitudes about gender or gnostics reinterpretations of faith

But the church also has the authority to determine what counts as “having been revealed” so that’s not a limitation.

 

[edwest2]

If they didn’t share at least some characteristics in common, it wouldn’t make sense to call them both priesthood.

So where is the woman’s equivalent of being an ordained priest? Father/mother, sister/brother, and monk/nun line up in a “different but equal way”, but then we get priest/nothing, and that is not equal. I see that as a handicap the church has placed on women, not one inherent in being a woman (which is the way you are interpreting me).

The Church is not a man-made invention. Christ, as God, was not influenced by prevailing standards (such as women could not become Rabbis). From Pope John Paul II:

1. The Declaration recalls and explains the fundamental reasons for this teaching, reasons expounded by Paul VI, and concludes that the Church “does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination.”(3) To these fundamental reasons the document adds other theological reasons which illustrate the appropriateness of the divine provision, and it also shows clearly that Christ’s way of acting did not proceed from sociological or cultural motives peculiar to his time. As Paul VI later explained: “The real reason is that, in giving the Church her fundamental constitution, her theological anthropology-thereafter always followed by the Church’s Tradition- Christ established things in this way.”(4)

In the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, I myself wrote in this regard: “In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time.”(5)

Hope this helps,
Ed

 

[NowHereThis]

Suppose the claim is that women are spiritually equal to men, but that equality is not reflected in how the claimant treats women in the temporal realm.

Is that not also separating the spiritual from the physical? Would not such a group or person be entitled to the epithet “gnostic”?

Seems to me that my perspective of treating women as equal both before God and in access to ordination is the less gnostic position.

 

[NowHereThis]

The Church is not a man-made invention. Christ, as God, was not influenced by prevailing standards (such as women could not become Rabbis). From Pope John Paul II:

1. The Declaration recalls and explains the fundamental reasons for this teaching, reasons expounded by Paul VI, and concludes that the Church “does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination.”(3) To these fundamental reasons the document adds other theological reasons which illustrate the appropriateness of the divine provision, and it also shows clearly that Christ’s way of acting did not proceed from sociological or cultural motives peculiar to his time. As Paul VI later explained: “The real reason is that, in giving the Church her fundamental constitution, her theological anthropology-thereafter always followed by the Church’s Tradition- Christ established things in this way.”(4)

In the Apostolic Letter Mulieris Dignitatem, I myself wrote in this regard: “In calling only men as his Apostles, Christ acted in a completely free and sovereign manner. In doing so, he exercised the same freedom with which, in all his behavior, he emphasized the dignity and the vocation of women, without conforming to the prevailing customs and to the traditions sanctioned by the legislation of the time.”(5)

Hope this helps,
Ed

Jesus also appointed only Jews to be apostles. And he appointed only twelve of them. But there are priests of all nationalities, and many more than twelve. Why insist that Jesus was instituting a ban on women’s ordination, and not also a ban on non-Jews, and limiting the priesthood to twelve?

 

[edwest2]

Jesus also appointed only Jews to be apostles. And he appointed only twelve of them. But there are priests of all nationalities, and many more than twelve. Why insist that Jesus was instituting a ban on women’s ordination, and not also a ban on non-Jews, and limiting the priesthood to twelve?

No individual here has the ability to change what Jesus established. The Church has no authority to ordain women. That teaching has been reaffirmed and is to be “definitively held” by all Catholics (Pope John Paul II).

Ed

 

[NowHereThis]

No individual here has the ability to change what Jesus established. The Church has no authority to ordain women. That teaching has been reaffirmed and is to be “definitively held” by all Catholics (Pope John Paul II).

Ed

But “what Jesus established” is a matter of interpretation, as I just pointed out with regard to the Jewishness and number of apostles. Those aren’t interpreted as establishing qualities for ordination, but maleness is, so it’s not like “what Jesus established” is some kind of church-independent standard that the church is then bound by.

 

[MarcoPolo]

And yet the bride has no particular requirement of only being female, since both men and women compose the bride.

A good question, but 2 things: 1, no individual person is exclusively “the bride.” The Church is the bride corporately. An individual priest stands in the person of Christ. So the parallel does not work. 2, even if what you say were correct, a female is the only sex that can “contain” a male as well, so there is no conflict no matter how you look at it from a sacramental perspective.

 

[revert_jen]

But the church also has the authority to determine what counts as “having been revealed” so that’s not a limitation.

I think you have the wrong idea about what the Church can and cannot do.

The truth is not something the Church “determines.” It is something the Church receives. Implicit in all Catholic thought is that the truth was received from Christ and from the Apostles, and that the Holy Spirit has guided the teachings of the Church and will continue doing so until Christ’s return. (Please understand that I said the teachings of the Church, not the practices of its members, even those members who are popes.)

Not only is there no tradition of the ordination of women (as there obviously is a tradition of non-Jewish priests, even in post-resurrection NT times), but most recently Pope St. John Paul II has re-clarified, after prayer, that it has been revealed that women cannot be ordained. If you try it, it won’t work.

Being a woman is not being a man. I do not feel handicapped by having to menstruate, although it is frequently annoying and can in some people (particularly without access to good healthcare) even be life-threatening. I do not think that my soul is the same as a man’s soul. It is equal but not the same. I do not have to be like a man to be as good as a man.

Are men handicapped by not being able to bear children? No, they’re just men. Are women handicapped by not being able to be priests? No, they’re just women. And to a Catholic who really believes Church teachings, it is just as certain that the second has been determined by God as that the first has.

–Jen

 

[eddie_too]

the ministerial priesthood and the priesthood of the faithful are not the same although they may have similarities.

start with that. these two states of being are not the same.

through baptism we share in Christ’s priestly function, His prophetic function, and His kingly function.

in Holy Orders, men perform Jesus priestly, prophetic and kingly functions.

it is a great error to believe that the priesthood of the faithful is even similar to the ministerial priesthood.

we can compare anything to anything else. but being able to compare two things only cements the fact that the two things are different and not the same. if two things are the same, they cannot be compared.

 

[DCNBILL]

Regardless of ordination women run the Church anyway, just walk into any parish office.

 

[NowHereThis]

A good question, but 2 things: 1, no individual person is exclusively “the bride.” The Church is the bride corporately. An individual priest stands in the person of Christ. So the parallel does not work. 2, even if what you say were correct, a female is the only sex that can “contain” a male as well, so there is no conflict no matter how you look at it from a sacramental perspective.

1. The priesthood is corporate too, yes? No individual priest has a monopoly on Christ.
2. This gives me an interesting idea. In keeping with your suggestion, to signify that in the Bride, the female is fully mature and the male is still unborn, there could be a priestess who acts “in personam ecclesia” or something and accepts the sacrifice from priest/Christ on behalf of the church/Bride.

 

[NowHereThis]

I think you have the wrong idea about what the Church can and cannot do.

The truth is not something the Church “determines.” It is something the Church receives. Implicit in all Catholic thought is that the truth was received from Christ and from the Apostles, and that the Holy Spirit has guided the teachings of the Church and will continue doing so until Christ’s return. (Please understand that I said the teachings of the Church, not the practices of its members, even those members who are popes.)

Not only is there no tradition of the ordination of women (as there obviously is a tradition of non-Jewish priests, even in post-resurrection NT times), but most recently Pope St. John Paul II has re-clarified, after prayer, that it has been revealed that women cannot be ordained. If you try it, it won’t work

Could the Holy Spirit show the church that it had misinterpreted what the Holy Spirit had been saying?

Being a woman is not being a man. I do not feel handicapped by having to menstruate, although it is frequently annoying and can in some people (particularly without access to good healthcare) even be life-threatening. I do not think that my soul is the same as a man’s soul. It is equal but not the same. I do not have to be like a man to be as good as a man.

Are men handicapped by not being able to bear children? No, they’re just men. Are women handicapped by not being able to be priests? No, they’re just women. And to a Catholic who really believes Church teachings, it is just as certain that the second has been determined by God as that the first has.

–Jen

What if we declared that, by law, men had no say in how their children are raised? It’s simply a matter of biology. Women bear the children, men don’t. So treating them as different in authority isn’t at all unfair. They are still equal souls.

Using your comparison of ordination to the ability to bear children, that’s what it would look like. Because denying you ordination is about denying you authority, not about biological differences. You’ve said your soul is equal to a man’s. But how is your soul different so that you are prevented from exercising the authority of a pope?

 

[NowHereThis]

the ministerial priesthood and the priesthood of the faithful are not the same although they may have similarities.

start with that. these two states of being are not the same.

through baptism we share in Christ’s priestly function, His prophetic function, and His kingly function.

in Holy Orders, men perform Jesus priestly, prophetic and kingly functions.

it is a great error to believe that the priesthood of the faithful is even similar to the ministerial priesthood.

we can compare anything to anything else. but being able to compare two things only cements the fact that the two things are different and not the same. if two things are the same, they cannot be compared.

First you say that the two priesthoods are not the same, but they could be similar. Then you say that they aren’t even similar. Which is it?